[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/HMS_Albion_MOD_45151289.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE][b]The Royal Navy could lose its ability to assault enemy held beaches, under plans being considered in the Ministry of Defence, BBC Newsnight understands.[/b]
Two specialist landing ships - HMS Albion and Bulwark - would be taken out of service under the proposals.
It is understood the head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Sir Philip Jones, formulated the move as part of a package designed to balance the books and free up sailors for the service's two new aircraft carriers.
Among other cuts envisaged are a reduction of 1,000 to the strength of the Royal Marines and the early retirement of two mine-hunting vessels and one survey vessel.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41511790[/url]
Basically we don't have enough sailors to crew the new CVs (QE and PoW) so the Albion and Bulwark might be placed into mothballs to give the CVs full manning numbers, along with the retirement of HMS Ocean
UK isn't super-power nor major-power ...
big island with some more islands w/o enough resources to self-sustain
w/o any modern air-force and navy to protect those it will keep shrinking
glory of British Empire is just wishful thinking from past
irony is this is after RN surface vessels count was reduced ...
[del]rule britannia[/del]
[del]britannia rules the waves[/del]
britains never never never shall be slaves
uh oh
It's been known for a while that those ships were going to be decommissioned in favour of the new carriers, so I don't know why it's news now. The RN is switching to a carrier battle group design, so it's a smaller fleet yes but one that's more professional and specialised. They also just commissioned a batch of new global combat frigates.
[img_thumb]http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/images/news/ships/belfast/170927-defence-secretary-names-new-warship-hms-belfast-in-northern-ireland/cm048817-02-01-type26.jpg?bc=Black&h=262&mh=262&w=490&cropregion=0,42,1500,843&hash=984733FC96816A1FF4A85482ED21A1D12C31B188[/img_thumb]
The assault ships were great but it's not as if the UK does a lot of beach assaults unless for training purposes and their crews would be better put to use on the carriers anyway. With them being decommissioned I'm not surprised to see the marines being cut-down as well. They'll probably be offered other positions no doubt.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;52752001][t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/HMS_Albion_MOD_45151289.jpg[/t]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41511790[/url]
Basically[B] we don't have enough sailors[/B] to crew the new CVs (QE and PoW) so the Albion and Bulwark might be placed into mothballs to give the CVs full manning numbers, along with the retirement of HMS Ocean[/QUOTE]
Didn't a High profile Admiral warn us about literally this about two years ago?
We need to seriously reconsider how much money is being set aside for defence. I'm not saying we need to crazy like the US, but things are getting bad now and there are serious holes in the capabilities of all three branches of the Armed Forces.
[QUOTE=David29;52752371]We need to seriously reconsider how much money is being set aside for defence. I'm not saying we need to crazy like the US, but things are getting bad now and there are serious holes in the capabilities of all three branches of the Armed Forces.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a subject i know much about, what's are the problems with the other two branches?
[QUOTE=David29;52752371]We need to seriously reconsider how much money is being set aside for defence. I'm not saying we need to crazy like the US, but things are getting bad now and there are serious holes in the capabilities of all three branches of the Armed Forces.[/QUOTE]
we need to reconsider how much money is set aside for a lot of things and defence is a way down that list.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;52752446]Y'all better enjoy your freedom while it lasts cause the French are invading again in 2066.[/QUOTE]
At this point they can HAVE it, they'll do a better job than we did.
[QUOTE=nightlord;52752400]This isn't a subject i know much about, what's are the problems with the other two branches?[/QUOTE]
the L85 rifle and probably the fact that britain has no indigenous fighter production so they have to buy expensive f-35s or w/e europe is making, also probably just general austarity having killed their recruitment efforts years ago so now they have a serious deficit of trained experienced military personnel
(i really have no idea)
[QUOTE=Dwarden;52752062]UK isn't super-power nor major-power ... [/QUOTE]
Lmao, are you tripping? The UK is 4th in terms of number of nukes owned, which at the present climate pretty much defines a super-power.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52752491]the L85 rifle and probably the fact that britain has no indigenous fighter production so they have to buy expensive f-35s or w/e europe is making, also probably just general austarity having killed their recruitment efforts years ago so now they have a serious deficit of trained experienced military personnel
(i really have no idea)[/QUOTE]
We wasted money on the eurofighter typhoon so our aircraft capabilities are up shit creek.
The L85 is looking to be phased out in the future.
*ARGENTINE AIR FORCE HEAVY BREATHING INTENSIFIES*
[QUOTE=Crumpet;52752406]we need to reconsider how much money is set aside for a lot of things and defence is a way down that list.[/QUOTE]
I would disagree. Defence is not any issue to be taken lightly. Changes and decisions that are made can take many, many years to be fully implemented - and a lot can happen in that period. Proof is in the pudding: we have steered the army away from Cold War era with the prediction of fighting in Europe and have re-focussed on counter-insurgency in the Middle East. Now the threat of Russia has resurfaced, and we are not as well placed as we were to combat them.
We also must consider that we are guaranteeing the defence of not just the UK, but also our overseas territories.
[QUOTE=David29;52752870]I would disagree. Defence is not any issue to be taken lightly. Changes and decisions that are made can take many, many years to be fully implemented - and a lot can happen in that period. Proof is in the pudding: we have steered the army away from Cold War era with the prediction of fighting in Europe and have re-focussed on counter-insurgency in the Middle East. Now the threat of Russia has resurfaced, and we are not as well placed as we were to combat them.
We also must consider that we are guaranteeing the defence of not just the UK, but also our overseas territories.[/QUOTE]
I thought the arguement for having nukes was to avoid having a land war
[QUOTE=Conna;52752493]Lmao, are you tripping? The UK is 4th in terms of number of nukes owned, which at the present climate pretty much defines a super-power.[/QUOTE]
rotting nukes on obsolete holders isn't something anyone is worried about
except the owner self ;)
UK lost superpower status by end of WW2, USA retook it's role (including quite some of former UK bases/territory)
UK lost major power status by losing Suez and several other strategic places later ...
[QUOTE=Dwarden;52753250]rotting nukes on obsolete holders isn't something anyone is worried about
except the owner self ;)
UK lost superpower status by end of WW2, USA retook it's role (including quite some of former UK bases/territory)
UK lost major power status by losing Suez and several other strategic places later ...[/QUOTE]
No.
There are a number of issues with what you are saying. First, how can you quantify that the UK's nukes are 'rotting' and that the delivery vehicles are 'obsolete'?
Ok, the UK is not a superpower any more. But it retains its status as a major for a many number of different reasons. To suggest that it lost this status because of the Suez Crisis is absurd - that failure had very little to do with the UK's military capabilities. Shall the USA be downgraded because of Vietnam? You also ignore the significance of the Falklands War, which proved the UK's ability to project its power globally.
[QUOTE=Conna;52752493]Lmao, are you tripping? The UK is 4th in terms of number of nukes owned, which at the present climate pretty much defines a super-power.[/QUOTE]
UK cannot influence other's internal politics anymore.
UK does not own half of the world anymore.
A super-power is a country that has a great sphere of influence, can influence other's policies. UK's sphere is long gone, they cannot dictate international or regional treaties anymore.
UK is a regional power, meaning they are valued in their respected regions.
A world power is for example Russia that influences Kaukasia, Middle Asia, Eastern Ukraine. It's also a powerhouse.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52762543]UK cannot influence other's internal politics anymore.
UK does not own half of the world anymore.
A super-power is a country that has a great sphere of influence, can influence other's policies. UK's sphere is long gone, they cannot dictate international or regional treaties anymore.
UK is a regional power, meaning they are valued in their respected regions.
A world power is for example Russia that influences Kaukasia, Middle Asia, Eastern Ukraine. It's also a powerhouse.[/QUOTE]
You might need to re-read my post because I specifically stated that the UK WAS NOT a superpower.
Also: [url]https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/[/url]
[QUOTE=David29;52762592]You might need to re-read my post because I specifically stated that the UK WAS NOT a superpower.
Also: [url]https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/[/url][/QUOTE]
Look who I've quoted. That's right, not you.
However that article is pretty damn interensting and I will admit that I was wrong in many places such as "UK has too small influence to affect any other countries that do not lay in their region. This article clearly proves me wrong.
I don't really buy that France is behind the UK in hard power.
The Charles De Gaulle is a functional aircraft carrier with proper jets. You really can't replace the functionality of launching jets off the coast of a nation.
I buy that the UK is ahead of them in soft power though.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52766901]Look who I've quoted. That's right, not you.
However that article is pretty damn interensting and I will admit that I was wrong in many places such as "UK has too small influence to affect any other countries that do not lay in their region. This article clearly proves me wrong.[/QUOTE]
I apologise. Bad reading on my part.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
